Juan Garofalo wrote:

>         If 30% of the price of gas is taxes, the the real price of gas is
> 30% lower...

Let's say what you call taxes is the price for you being able to use the
common infrastructure... Your cost would probably be way higher if you had
to pay for every bit of public infrastructure you are currently using
without paying.

>>- If whatever they want suits them, and they are so many that this makes a
>>difference, what is wrong with that?
> 
>         Perhaps you should look up 'mob rule' ? 

As opposed to 'intelligent individual rule' aka dictatorship? It's only
your (possibly as twisted as my) brain that says that this is so...

> What 'difference' are you alluding to, btw ? 

The difference it makes that these people you so despise (epsilon-minus or
so :) exist. Maybe you should try to get reborn on a different planet :)

>>I simply don't think I get compensated enough for the negative effects that
>>burning oil by others has on me.
> 
>         That's what makes you a green. Now, if you also believe that the
> govt. must fix the price of the compensation you fancy you deserve, that
> makes you a leftie. There you are : a green leftie.

No, not the government in principle. The one who causes the burn. But I
see, your argument in favor of free-market is just an attempt to freeload
on someone else's back. You don't want to carry the cost of what you do,
and rather have a communist-style dictatorship dictate that everyone has to
pick up a share of the costs that your actions cause.

I didn't sell you my clean air, right? So why do you think you have the
right to damage it? I also didn't sell my part of the water under my
property, so what gives my neighbor the right to pump out water that comes
from under my property?

>         The point is, some people are willing to use force, i. e. send the
> lawyers and cops, against people who don't share their religious beliefs.

Nope, has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I just don't want anybody
damaging my goods or subtracting them from me without my consent. Isn't
that what you are proposing? Or are there subtle details that you failed to
mention (like you get to define what can be taken from me and what not)?


>>Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy".
> 
>         The oil in 'your' commons is only sitting there. It's useless unless
> it's extracted and refined. 

So you get to define what is useless for me, when I have a right to
consider something useful for me and when not. Sounds... hm.... :)

> That's what I mean by production of energy. If there's oil in your
> backyard you can extract it and sell it...or not, as you please. If you
> don't, and your neighbour does, then you can't complain that he's
> stealing 'your' oil. 

Of course he is. I might want to save it for later. Is it you who defines
where the liberty to do with mine as I please ends, and if I don't do as
you please, you take it away from me? See... it just takes a little
explaining, and you show your face.

Or maybe I come and take all the plants off your property, because you are
obviously not 'using' them the way I think they should be used...

> This would be the solution based on private property. 

If there's no private property, there's no free market of goods, not 'REAL'
nor otherwise. So if you propose a 'REAL free-market' (as you did), then
we're bound to assume private property, no?

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist